Jersey shore flooding

Heard on news where one place has more flooding than hurricane Sandy. FEMA better bail them out again, don't you think? Some people dislike big government so how many times should the government bail people out living in a flood plain? I think two times is enough. If you want to live in a flood plain, go ahead, it's your loss.

I have to say, I agree with you.

I totally agree with you but there are always two sides to every story.
We help poor people put food on the table for their children every month threw SNAP.
Why not help someone that gets hit by a flood or tornado.

FEMA tried doing something about this with the Biggert-Waters Act of 2012.
This made it to where flooded homes that had a more than 50% loss and all new construction had to be built above the flood plain. It also did away with government subsidized flood insurance.

There was a tsunami of anger nationwide as flood insurance went from hundreds of dollars to thousands of dollars.
Some in high flood areas were given bills larger than their mortgage payments making their house worthless for resale.
This would be detrimental to homeowners and banks across the country.
So congress came out with the Homeowner Flood Insurance Affordability Act of 2014.
So now you once again pay for flood insurance threw your tax dollars going to government subsidizes to lower flood insurance in high risk areas.

This all comes up again in 2017; oddly enough right after the elections are over.
They are talking about doing away with the flood maps and going to a more widely-held flood (and disaster) insurance that more closely resembles auto insurance where the risk is spread out among all drivers and vehicle owners.
So then someone in tornado alley; flood plans; earthquake areas; and the average joe in middle American would all pay the same rate no matter what the risk is.

We have allowed people to build in high risk areas for many years.
Then we turned into a compassionate humanitarian gota help your fellow man society somewhere along the way.
So now rather than one saying you made this bed you lay in it; we say How can we help you.

While it would be great (And I think they should) to just turn off the faucet and say every man for himself that is not the way amercia has chosen to be. Not only would it be political suicide; you are talking about disrupting our entire banking and insurance system; not to mention millions of lives.

I just saw it on the CBS news. Didn't look all that bad to me. High water in the streets,sure,but nothing's washed away.

I am about the same way with the folks in California that builds on those cliffs. If they want the view they should pay for their insurance or be willing to pay up when the house falls in the ocean. When a grown man makes a decision to put his self in harms way he should be willing to suffer the consequences .

Once the tide went out the flood was over.

To answer your question ; the government should not rebuild at all. A lot were brought up on fraud charges as these were second homes only first homes were covered.

I agree with the majority of what John posted. The trouble is that what they consider a flood area is changing. Also the insurance companies are using the flood insurance as a crutch to use and not cover ANY water/flood damage unless you have the insurance.

In Dubuque about 8-10 year ago there where two houses flooded after a heavy rain event, like 5-8 inches in a few hours. The trouble is these two houses are 100 feet above any water way or river. So how did they flood. Well they are half way up the steep hill that is along the Mississippi River. They are on the down hill side of a street. The houses have garages on the main floor that is level with the street. Then a downstairs that is level with the back if the grade/lot. So how did they flood??? Across from these two house is a cross street. The water came down this cross street several feet in depth. It ramped up the houses drive ways an caved in the garage doors and then flooded the inside of the houses. It destroyed these two houses. The owners had to sue the insurances companies to get any coverage. The companies both said they would not pay for flood damage since the houses where flood damaged. The companies did not want to listen to the fact that both homes were 75-100 feet above any recorded flood plain.

So I am on the fence with regards as what to do with the flood insurance issue. If we make the insurance pool too small then it would be unaffordable to anyone. I really think that including all damage nation wide would work IF they still limit where your covered that had known risks. Example flood plains or mud slide areas. Limit the coverage on new construction in those area.

It is not an easy answer. While I like everyone to stand on their own two feet as much as possible I am also compassionate enough to realize shared risked is not a bad thing either. It would be hard to relocate hundreds of years of building in high risk areas. For many years homes/towns/cities were built along the rivers for the access to the water. We have the technology now to make it where we do not have to be right along the rivers for the benefits of them.

Bad timing with the full moon and the storm made high tide even worse.

JD
They got lucky if the insurance paid out. More likely easier to pay than litigate.

You buy 2 insurance policies.
Flood and home owners.
As to water.....
Flood pays for water that comes out of your yard.
Home Owners pays for water out of the sky damage caused by your roof being torn off or a window breaking due to wind.

It does not matter if you are 10 feet below sea level or on top of Mount Everest.
If the water was in your yard before it was in your house it is covered by flood insurance.

The real problem comes in a hurricane.
Large areas of homes are gone. Nothing but slabs left.
Did a wave wash them away or did a tornado blow them down.
You have both insurance policies so somebody has to pay.
But you sit there and watch the 2 companies fight over who will pay.
Meanwhile you have nothing from either.

I never heard FEMA doing anything in California. Often wondered why. Does California foot the bill, self insured? Or Does big brother pay. After Florida was hit with two hurricanes, private ins co pulled out, leaving Florida to form Citizens Insurance. Costs more and they pay less.

John, I don't have or need government flood insurance. You are only required to have flood insurance to cover your mortgage. At least that is what I've been told. My house insurance premiums is based on risk, so if your risk is greater, then you pay more. I have a higher risk of tornadoes and hail. I pay for my risk, not everyone in the US,

Maybe you missed it or I did not explain it good enough.

In 2017 this will all come back to the table.
Fema wants everyone to pay their share based on their risk.
Problem is how does someone go from paying hundreds of dollars to thousands of dollars for insurance.
Lets say they raise your tornado and hail coverage to $12,000 next year.
Or lets say if your house is destroyed by a tornado you can not rebuild unless you jump threw many many hoops.
No way can the average joe pay it and now your home is worthless because no one would buy it and take on a 12k insurance policy.
So congress is "THINKING" about combining flood; hail; earthquake; and tornado; just to name a few into one pool.
I have a flood risk of $3000 and you have a tornado risk of $1000.
So under the proposed new rules we would each pay $2000.

The two home owners I talked about where in a catch 22 situation. They could NOT buy flood insurance because their homes where not in a flood plain.

I understand the issue. My brother helped with the clean up of Katrina. I visited him at the city of " Bay of St. Louis". The town/city was just gone for about a 1/2 mile from the water. Everything took down to the foundations. He was staying miles north at Kiln and they had 3-4 feet of storm surge water there. I could under stand the high cost of insurance on an ocean front property but how far inland are you going to go in the gulf states????

There is no easy answer. I do not see leaving the coasts and river valleys, completely nationwide. That is not practical either.

My wife has family that live right along the Ohio river. There house has been flooded. Once, 1937. Since the dams where built in the 1950s-60s there has not even been water even close to the house but it does not set five hundred feet from the river but on a high bank. The house shows being in a flood plain but has not flooded in 79 years. The cost of the insurance is the same as another family home down river that has flooded multiple times since 1937. So there seems to be not much rhyme or reason to the cost of coverage.

I am afraid the flood insurance issue will have to be a government issue. As any single or even multiple companies could not stand a disaster like Katrina. Crop insurance falls into the same area. If we would have a wide spread drought like 1988, the claims would swamp the private companies.

There are some things that do need to be handled at the national/Federal level. These are some of them. If they would stop trying to do the things that can be handled locally then there would be funds and time for the things that need national attention.

John, I'm confused. The only place to get flood insurance is the fed government, right? You only need flood insurance if you have a mortgage, right? I have no mortgage, therefore I really don't need insurance of any kind. Some people in Indiana have none at all. However, I want insurance, so I pay for just the coverage I want. FEMA plays no part in my insurance, that I'm aware. My insurance is state controlled, except for flood.

Did I miss anything? Am I wrong?
Geo

George as of today you are correct. You have no mortgage you do not need any insurance of any kind.
But what will happen tomorrow is anybody's guess.
The problem is no one knows how to make it a fair system.
Fema has said no one can build in a flood zone unless you build above the flood elevation.
The elevation for my neighborhood is 22 feet.
The house across the street from me is at about 20.5 feet but has never flooded.
If a tornado blows it down tomorrow he will not be allowed to rebuild unless he raises his slab 1.5 feet.

Fema wants to get away from constantly paying to rebuild places that have flooded several times in the past.
But requiring some one to relocate or pay full price for flood insurance is not realistic. The price is way to high.
That is why congress is talking about sharing flood insurance cost with a bigger pool.
In other words tornado insurance will go up to compensate for loses due to flood in other places.
I really do not think this will work either but that is what is being discussed.
Just one case

John, thanks for your reply. A few years my sister garage that was built in a flood plane burnt. She couldn't rebuild unless garage was elevated. So she took insurance money and didn't rebuild. As for me, I'll just carry liability insurance. No way will I pay for people who want to live in flood planes. I'm 67 soon,yet to be hit by tornadoes. So raise my rates, some one else will pay, not me. If I have a major business loss,I'll take it off taxes for rest of my life. George

(quoted from post at 01:58:04 01/25/16) George as of today you are correct. You have no mortgage you do not need any insurance of any kind.
But what will happen tomorrow is anybody's guess.
The problem is no one knows how to make it a fair system.
Fema has said no one can build in a flood zone unless you build above the flood elevation.
The elevation for my neighborhood is 22 feet.
The house across the street from me is at about 20.5 feet but has never flooded.
If a tornado blows it down tomorrow he will not be allowed to rebuild unless he raises his slab 1.5 feet.

Fema wants to get away from constantly paying to rebuild places that have flooded several times in the past.
But requiring some one to relocate or pay full price for flood insurance is not realistic. The price is way to high.
That is why congress is talking about sharing flood insurance cost with a bigger pool.
In other words tornado insurance will go up to compensate for loses due to flood in other places.
I really do not think this will work either but that is what is being discussed.
Just one case

Click to expand...

It is a messy situation. To say being without a mortgage means you don't [u:f08474f8ca]need[/u:f08474f8ca] coverage is a bit misleading. No mortgage means no agency or bank is going to require you to get a property policy of any kind, but IMHO, you do need it as you never know what will happen. If one can fund a rebuilding or cleanup out of their savings or investments or can just walk away from the burning embers, that's all good, most of us can't and consider the cost of the insurance reasonable in comparison to the alternative.

A fair system would be one where every person pays for their own exposures to loss, like most of us that live in hurricane or tornado areas do today. What would be unfair is for me to pay premium for flood insurance that I would never use due to no risk of flooding, or my company to pay an assessment or contribution out of all premium collected to a flood insurance risk pool for someone living along a river or the coast. Dare I say the fairest way would be for all those in flood areas to have mandatory flood insurance to make that pool of risks bigger. Lacking that we are back to what we have now, unaffordable flood insurance with the pool of risks being smaller. Subsidies of any kind are disruptive, what you subsidize you get more of, and that's NOT what we want. To really discourage building on the coast or in flood plains we need those to pay the real cost of the coverage, or go without and pay for their own losses.